New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

GREEN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-015-026, Claim No. 113099, Motion No. M-74378


Synopsis


Claimant's motion for reargument was denied as he failed to establish that the Court overlooked the law or misapprehended the facts.

Case Information

UID:
2008-015-026
Claimant(s):
SHAWN GREEN
Claimant short name:
GREEN
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
113099
Motion number(s):
M-74378
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Claimant’s attorney:
Shawn Green, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: Michael T. Krenrich, EsquireAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
April 4, 2008
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant, an inmate proceeding pro se, moves for an order granting leave to reargue his prior motion for partial summary judgment on his claims for wrongful confinement, bailment and negligence. The motion is denied. It is well settled that a motion to reargue is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court and requires the moving party to demonstrate that the Court overlooked or misapprehended matters of fact or misapplied existing law to the facts presented (see CPLR, Rule 2221 [d] [2]; Peak v Northway Travel Trailers, 260 AD2d 840 [1999]; Spa Realty Assocs. v Springs Assocs., 213 AD2d 781 [1995]). Such a motion does not serve as a vehicle to permit the unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided (see Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567 [1979], lv denied 56 NY2d 507 [1982]).

The Court is unpersuaded that it misapprehended the facts or misapplied the law in arriving at its determination on the prior motion. Claimant’s motion for partial summary judgment was granted on his cause of action for wrongful confinement and otherwise denied. The wrongful confinement claim arose from the defendant’s alleged failure to commence a disciplinary hearing within seven days of the claimant’s confinement to the special housing unit (SHU) at Great Meadow Correctional Facility as required by 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 [a]. In support of his motion to reargue, the claimant contends, inter alia, that the first day of confinement should have been counted in computing the date by which the disciplinary hearing was required to be commenced, which effects the computation of the number of days the claimant was excessively confined. In support of this argument he submitted a 1993 memorandum from the then Deputy Commissioner of DOCS in which he indicates that the first day of a disciplinary confinement should be counted in computing the period by which a disciplinary hearing must be commenced. As noted in the Court’s prior decision, however, recent case law holds otherwise (see Matter of Agosto v Selsky, 39 AD3d 1106 [2007]).

Claimant’s motion for summary judgment on his bailment claims was properly denied. With respect to the personal property which he claims was not returned to him following his admission to SHU, the personal property transfer form reflects that the claimant acknowledged receipt of all of his property. As noted by the Court in its prior order, although this alone may not be dispositive of the claim (see Alston v State of New York, 9 Misc 3d 1126 [A] [Ct Cl, 2005]) it is sufficient to defeat the claimant’s motion for summary judgment.

The Court has reviewed the claimant’s remaining contentions and finds them similarly unavailing. Claimant has failed to establish that the Court misapprehended the facts or misapplied the law in arriving at its determination on the prior motion.

Accordingly, claimant's motion to reargue is denied.



April 4, 2008
Saratoga Springs, New York

HON. FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims


The Court considered the following papers:
  1. Notice of motion dated December 21, 2007;
  2. Affidavit of Shawn Green sworn to December 21, 2007 with exhibit;
  3. Memorandum of law of Shawn Green dated December 21, 2007;
  4. Affirmation of Michael T. Krenrich dated January 3, 200[8];
  5. Reply of Shawn Green sworn to January 11, 2008.